Facts:

Petitioner Cristino Jamias was a Professor of English Language and Literature and
concurrently Head of the University Publications Department. His service had been
unquestionably continuous for more than fifteen years before he reached the age of 65 years on July
20, 1961. Dean (now Regent) Tomas S. Fonacier of the U.P. College of Arts and Sciences
requests that Jamias' service be extended for one academic year for he had been commissioned to
write the history of U.P. but had just finished half of it.

The Auditor General held that the Board of Regents was without power to extend the services of
U.P. professors beyond the compulsory limit of 65 years. GSIS wrote Prof. Jamias that his
services rendered after the compulsory retirement age were illegal; and that he (Jamias)
was not entitled to compensation. Then followed the directive of U.P. Auditor Alfredo Liboro that
Prof. Jamias' salary be withheld.

Issue:

Whether or not the Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines (U.P.) may extend the
tenure of a professor beyond the retirement age by law fixed at 65 years.

Ruling:

No. As government employees, U.P. professors are compulsorily covered by the Retirement Law,
Commonwealth Act 186, as amended, which creates a uniform retirement system for all members of
the GSIS. The applicable retirement law at the time Prof. Jamias reached retirement age of 65 years
on July 20, 1961 was Section 4 (a), Commonwealth Act 186

SEC. 4. Scope of application of System. — (a) Membership in the System shall be

compulsory upon all regularly and permanently appointed employees, xxx upon all teachers
except only those who are substitutes xxx

It makes eminent sense to say that the deletion of the University of the Philippines from
the exception cannot be of de minimis effect (insignificant).

It may be said that in accordance with Republic Act 660, retirement was automatically compulsory at
age 65 if the employee had completed 15 years of service; except that upon specific approval by the
President of the Philippines, an employee might be allowed to continue to serve after the age of 65
years if he possessed special qualifications and his services were needed. This power given to the
President by Republic Act 660 was granted also by Republic Act 728 to the President of the Senate,
the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. However,
when Sec. 12(e) of Commonwealth Act 186 (as amended by RA 3096, the law here
applicable) took effect on June 17, 1961, this grant of power to extend the service of an employee
beyond the age of 65 was eliminated. Such elimination operates to repeal the eliminated provision.

Retired employee may be retained in the government beyond 65 years of age finds support
from Section 12(d) of Commonwealth Act 186 (as amended by RA 3096)
(d) An employee separated from the service who is receiving an annuity shall not be eligible again to
appointment to any appointive position or employment under any 'employer' unless the appointing
authority determines that he is possessed of special qualifications and his medical examination has
been approved by the System, in which event he shall not be entitled to payments of his annuity
during the period of his new employment. Upon the termination of his new appointment, the
payments of the annuity which were discontinued shall be resumed.

To harmonize Section 12(d) with Section 12(e) — as it stood amended by Republic Act
3096 — is to hold that a retired employee who is receiving annuity from the GSIS may be
reappointed to the government service only if he has not yet reached the age of 65 years.
The prohibition in Section 12(e) against the extension of the service of a retirable
government employee where the conditions for automatic and compulsory retirement exist
is so patent and so clear that it will not admit of any other construction that would violate
legislative intent.

But….

The unique and peculiar circumstances under which Prof. Jamias' services were sought,
engaged and harnessed anew, sufficiently justified a special contract of services up to April
15, 1962. This the Board of Regents had authority to do, even as it had no power to extend
his original term. The questioned resolution must be viewed in this sense. He is thus entitled
to payment of his salary up to the last named date.

Upon the view we take of this case —

-vote to grant the writ of prohibition prayed by the petitioners

-permanently enjoined from withholding the salary of petitioner Cristino Jamias

corresponding to the extended period of service from July 20, 1961 to April 15, 1962

-GSIS is hereby permanently enjoined from deducting any amount from petitioner Jamias' five-year
retirement annuity

(in short, bawal magextend ng tenure ang Board of Regents, but may compensation parin na
mabibigay kay Prof. Jamias kasi nakapagtrabaho na siya lagpas sa retirement date niya)